CAUL Executive Meeting 2008/1

CAUL Executive Meeting 2008/1

Monday, February 18 2008
from 10am to 4pm

QUT Gardens Point Campus, Building U, Room U217

DRAFT Minutes
http://www.caul.edu.au/meeting$/executive-meetings.html

(Updated 21/3/08)

1677.  Attendance & Apologies. Andrew Wells (President), Cathrine Harboe-Ree (Deputy President), Heather Gordon, Greg Anderson, Imogen Garner (Treasurer). In attendance: Diane Costello. Judy Stokker joined members for lunch at 12.30pm

1678.  Minutes of CAUL Executive Meeting 2007/6 – Sydney 21 November 2007. The minutes were accepted.

1679.  Business Arising, not otherwise included in the agenda.

a)  Item 1654. It was suggested that the guidelines for the CAUL achievement award be revisited to emphasise the national significance of the achievements. Andrew Wells will redraft and present to CAUL for approval. (Action: AW)

STRATEGIC PLAN

1680.  Review of Progress of Strategic Plan (Standing Item). It was agreed that the preamble and overall goals are still relevant. The strategic plan will be added to the April CAUL agenda. (Action: DC) The BPWG and ULAWG have been invited to formulate an action plan derived from the strategic plan along the lines of that developed by the ILWG and/or CEIRC.

Suggested updates to the strategic plan were discussed:

Include a reference to changes in research practices, especially as enabled by technology. The change of government will have some impact on the higher education sector with policies yet to be finalised – the impact is uncertain.

Are learning skills now as important to all as information literacy? It was suggested that Cathrine Harboe-Ree include this in a hot topics session. (Action: CH-R)

The terminology of “learning commons” has changed to “learning spaces.”

Information literacy should be embedded in the learning outcomes of the university, and included in graduate attributes statement. Review the role of IL in learning outcomes. Ask the ILWG to discuss adding learning outcomes to the statement. (Action: DC)

It was noted that there are no actions around learning spaces. The Carrick colloquium will be repeated in 2008, and it was suggested that it be a theme for the September CAUL meeting. No-one has measured the impact of changes to learning spaces – an action could look at how to measure impact, or to look at guidelines or standards for measuring the impact of changes. (Action: Executive)

Research is being brought into focus through a heightened awareness of research performance. Andrew Wells referred to Research Libraries As Knowledge Producers: A Shifting Context For Policy And Funding: Final Technical Report to the Task Force on New Ways Of Measuring Collections, Association of Research Libraries http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/lincoln.pdf [This arose from The ARL Task Force on New Ways of Measuring Collections. http://www.arl.org/stats/aboutstats/tfnewways.shtml]

It was suggested that CAUL is not a major contributor to digitisation programs, as are museums and archives, so that rather than developing a framework, CAUL should provide an avenue for knowledge exchange. CAUL should contribute to national initiatives relevant to CAUL as they arise.

The eResearch actions should be amended to support the development of activities in these areas e.g. run workshops, exchange information, contribute to ANDS activities, etc. Funding sources for the latter are still unclear.

22. Develop statements of value for university libraries, both quantitative and qualitative (Ad Hoc Working Group) There is more than one group working in this area. A new language is needed to demonstrate impact and value. Cathrine Harboe-Ree will check with the Go8 regarding distribution of their report. (Action: CH-R)

The Insync Survey review will be included as a 2008 action, and the document delivery survey will be taken off – this was partially dependent on some work by the National Library. It was noted that UNISON interest in the reference survey has waned, and it will be removed from the action plan. Action #15 can be removed as it is not really a CAUL issue; collapse 17 and 20, remove examples, action by all members.

It was agreed that the quality of staff resources is essential to the delivery of quality and value. Rather than assign its monitoring to a working group it was decided to keep within the Executive. Workforce development will be added to the rationale. It was noted that Gilliam Hallam’s survey is scheduled to start in March. CAUL’s role is information sharing.

CAUL members may wish to share information on the new AUQA round e.g. in a hot topic session. It was agreed to provide CAUL’s guidelines on international and off-shore operations to AUQA (Action: DC)

The proposed amendments to the strategic plan will be included in the CAUL meeting papers. (Action: DC)

CONTRIBUTION TO RESEARCH

1681.  CEIRC (CAUL Electronic Information Resources Committee).

a)  CEIRC Review. The final report was released to the Executive on January 11. A question from Heather Gordon was referred back to the consultant who was unable to respond without further analysis of the raw data. Diane Costello prepared some commentary on the numbers and circulated the raw data to the Executive.

Andrew Wells discussed the report at the Datasets Coordinators meeting on February 4 and the CEIRC committee on February 5. He recommended to Datasets Coordinators that they discuss and clarify their roles with their University Librarian. It was suggested raising this with CAUL members because of the assumption that exceptions will be escalated by Datasets Coordinators to the university librarian, but this is clearly not always the case. (Action: AW)

Members discussed each of the recommendations. It was noted that the synopsis is as important as the recommendations.

2.1.1.  a. More proactive identification of vendors sources. It was suggested that this be supported unless additional resources were required. If additional resources are required, it is unlikely to be cost-effective. Identification of new vendors is generally made by Datasets Coordinators.

b. Members discussed how better to communicate at the strategic level about any major renegotiations underway. The CEIRC Chair could draw members’ attention to the major database negotiations which are reported in the CEIRC minutes. Communication could be improved through training and the web site. More informed discussions on CEIRC at the CAUL meeting could help, and more issues could be highlighted in the reports to CAUL i.e. trends, issues, state of the nation, etc (Action: GA) It was suggested that communication needs more to come from CAUL members and Datasets Coordinators rather than the committee and the CAUL Office.

c. It was suggested that this be supported unless additional resources were required.

d. More aggressive price negotiation with Vendors. It was suggested that this may be supportable. Andrew Wells referred to a proposal from CAVAL’s Janette Wright. It was asked how part VB affect price negotiations? It was noted that renegotiations are targeted more at price caps and conditions once the base price is set, hence the importance of fixing an appropriate base price. It is not clear that negotiations have much influence on price, even if negotiated at the university librarian level, and it may be best to acknowledge this. It was recommended that if it is perceived that there is genuine room to negotiate, CAUL should establish a negotiating committee, not limited to the CEIRC committee, for the process. (Action: CAUL Executive) It was recommended that the costs of such a committee be monitored and tracked back to the CEIRC program.

2.1.2.  Members considered whether removing any external participants would save more than their income. It was recommended that no new members be admitted. It was recommend that all external participants pay external rates, and that CONZUL pays their costs of committee representation.

Cathrine Harboe-Ree recommended that CAUL give notice to external members that at the end of current agreements CAUL ceases to support external participants. Members discussed where they could go e.g. to Libraries Australia, or direct to vendors. It was noted that locally based vendors prefer to deal direct.

The impact on the work of the CAUL Office was also discussed, and the reduction in income of approximately $50,000.

It was noted that savings at the institutions’ end were not considered as part of this review. The review examined the program itself, how it is budgeted and resourced and who has access to it.

2.1.3.  It was recommended that key performance indicators be built into the operational plan for CEIRC.

2.2.1  It was recommended that CAUL not be incorporated.

2.2.2  It was noted that events highlighted here are covered under workers compensation through current salary management processes.

2.2.3  It was suggested that legal advice be obtained for contractual risk, particularly when signing heads of agreement. It was noted that this held less risk than signing a contract on behalf of all subscribers because heads of agreement contracts were accompanied by institutional contracts. It was agreed to adopt the suggested clause describing CAUL’s limitations but that this should be sufficient.

2.2.4  Members’ concerns about flow of funds were noted, but it was agreed that the current processes included appropriate and sufficient checks and the risks appear to be well covered. It was agreed that no further action is necessary.

2.2.5  Members’ concerns about the Trade Practices Act were noted, but it was agreed that the non-exclusivity of the CEIRC program, and its opt-in approach, guarded it from risk. It was agreed that no further action is necessary.

2.3.1  a. Members discussed when might CEIRC decide to withdraw from an offer/agreement. It was noted that the area was quite complex – a low take-up product may be from the same vendor as other, high take-up product/s; a low take-up product may not yet have reached its subscription plateau, which may take 3-4 years. It was agreed not to set a target but to leave the recommendations to the Executive Officer.

b. It was agreed to investigate ACT! by Sage as a potential management tool in the first instance. It was noted that this task might present resourcing problems while the website is being upgraded, but that its resolution is desirable before the 2008 renewals round, starting in August.

c. It was suggested not recommending a fee increase for CAUL, but changing the relativity of the CAUL and CEIRC fees; this would show the real costs applied to each program.

d. It was agreed not to budget around the interest income, as it is volatile according to global interest rates. It is desirable that it be applied to CEIRC e.g. to support administrative efficiencies.

e. The review and implementation of the website is underway.

Members noted that the legal advice is very welcome. They also noted the very positive comments about office operations. The review affirms a number of strategies and raises a number of questions. It gives CAUL a much stronger position when responding to external pressures. It should help allay some concerns about the program’s management.

1682.  ADT (Australasian Digital Theses) Program. Diane Costello called for expressions of interest from CAUL to replace Janice Rickards. There were no nominations by the due date. It was agreed to let this lapse as the program will be redefined in the near future. The support from DDOGS and CAPA was noted, and agreed that any replacement for the ADT needed to keep these groups included. (Action: Executive)

1683.  Research Quality Framework. An announcement on the replacement for the RQF is expected soon.

1684.  Research Infrastructure. Members discussed whether there should be more SPARC-type activities within CAUL, especially with respect to the Accessibility Framework. It was suggested that John Shipp be invited to speak to this at the CAUL meeting (Action: AW)

Andrew Wells referred to a proposal for CAUL support for an annual forum for institutional repository managers and coordinators in the Australasian region. It was noted that technical support for the ADT is coming to an end and the metadata repository does not require external management, but there continues to be a need to share information and expertise on institutional repositories in general. It was suggested that there is also a need to address the wider strategic view e.g. how to use institutional repositories for other purposes, first open access, then the RQF, then unpublished research papers, discussion papers, etc It was noted that ASHER funding is still available for 2008; sharing expertise is still important; there is a role for CAUL to keep abreast of the new technologies; copyright is still a significant issue for institutional repositories. It was noted that the institutional repositories list, IRCommunity-ANZ, was established following CAUL 2007/1.

a)  AeRIC (Australian eResearch Infrastructure Council). Cathrine Harboe-Ree is a member in a personal capacity, while Alan McMeekin is a CAUDIT representative. It would be desirable to have formal representation from CAUL. The first AeRIC meeting will be held February 22 in Melbourne. The membership of AeRIC is being reviewed, and is expected to have representatives from ANDS, and the other two areas.

Cathrine Harboe-Ree advised that the Systemic Infrastructure Initiative is being rolled into NCRIS with support from Clare McLaughlin in the Department of Innovation, Industry, Science and Research (DIISR.) The RQF and the Accessibility Framework remain under Leanne Harvey, also in DIISR.

b)  Australian Research Repositories Online to the World (ARROW) – Stage 2. Cathrine Harboe-Ree reported that ARROW’s funding will continue through 2008, PILIN is undergoing a transition and may be taken up by the NLA; Professor Dalziel’s projects have secured continuing funding, as has OAK-Law; RUBRIC is being wound up with the remaining funds being directed to the e-Framework. David Groenewegen is also managing ARCHER, which is expected to wind down before the middle of the year. NEAT undertakes concrete projects, and ARCHER will recommend which programs should go forward under NEAT.

c)  Australian Partnership for Sustainable Repositories (APSR) – Stage 2. APSR is being wound up.

d)  Australian Access Federation (AAF). Keith Webster has agreed to take over from Maxine Brodie on the Steering Committee from the next meeting. Diane Costello “attended” the last meeting in January.

1685.  Australian Framework and Action Plan for Digital Heritage Collections. A progress report from Margaret Birtley was circulated in January. The Principles for creating and managing digital heritage collections was finalised in November 2007. The Collections Council is developing three documents to expand on the draft Framework. They have published a paper entitled “A new future for Australia’s past” that summarises their “big ideas for new partnerships.” Linda Luther will be invited to propose recommendations to CAUL based on this document. (Action: DC) Some universities have expressed interest in basing their course development on aspects of the 2006 Conservation Survey.